Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

There was a lot of contentious posting about the aspect ratio of Lord of the Flies - Criterion's transfer being full frame and supervised by one of the film's camera operators who was also one of the film's editors. Now, we all know that the film was not ever shown full frame, at least in the United States of America, and most likely anywhere else because the majority of theaters no longer had the ability to show full frame. It played here in 1.85 - what it played in in England is anyone's guess, but what's not a guess is it wasn't full frame - so 1.66 or 1.75 or 1.85 would be the other options. So, what are we to surmise when one of the film's operators and one of its editors make this decision on a film that is fifty years old. Would Peter Brook, even making a low-budget independent film, purposely shoot his film in a format that wouldn't be shown anywhere except TV? Would the film's producer allow the film to be made in a ratio that could not be shown? I saw this film twelve times back in 1963 in my local theater that showed these kinds of films back then - in 1.85, which is all they could show aside from scope.

But now having watched it, the evidence is clearly on the screen - there is no shot on view that wouldn't frame nicely at 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85, whereas mostly every shot in the film looks unbalanced in full frame. The real convincer comes early on when the camera does the long tracking shot showing each of the boys on the beach. You'll note how the operator keeps adjusting the height of the frame to be consistent. That says everything you need it to say. In full frame those moves make no sense. Matted, they make perfect sense. I'm sorry, but if they can do three versions of On the Waterfront (none of which are correct, BTW, since the image was zoomed), why can't they present Lord of the Flies the way it was shown in theaters and then this other thing?

Short answer - probably because they were asked to release it this way. It's hardly unprecedented. (see: The Last Emperor, Blast of Silence, etc.)

 

[EddieLarkin]

The commentary on the disc may have some answers. Apparently, Brook had his camera operators purposefully not "compose" shots so as to give the film a more wild and documentary type feel. The whole crew seemingly felt this comes across best in full frame, with Feil referring to the presentation of the laserdisc as the first time it has been seen as intended.

That's a summary of the commentary, anyway, from a user at criterionforum, so it may be worth having a listen yourself.

But yes, it seems like historically this will have played wide, and obviously efforts were made to make sure it worked in widescreen, but when you've got director, producer, DP and cameraman all telling you they prefer full frame it gets hard to argue that angle.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yeah, I don't think it playing 1.75 (or US 1.85) theatrically is in any dispute - clearly it played that way. But when the filmmakers prefer to release it a certain way after theatrical release they have that prerogative. And in the case of this film specifically, the documentary "look" in the 60s seems to be 1.37:1, which stylistically would support their argument for releasing it here that way. (Unless I am incorrect about 60s independent documentary filmmaking. They always seem to be 1.37:1 that I've seen, from Monterey Pop, to Salesman, to Primary).

 

[Moe Dickstein]

What is the issue with Blast of Silence?

 

[DVDvision]

Hi Bob, I'm not sure if the info was posted in the thread, did a quick search with no results. What format would the original 1966 Django, by Sergio Corbucci, be documented for initial US screenings? It's one of those weird 1.66:1 formated euro westerns.

ADDITION: just got King Vidor's Man Without a Star (1955) starring Kirk Douglas french DVD. It is 4/3. I see on dvdbeaver that there is a german 2.0:1 disc available. Was that movie 1.85:1 as imdb says, or superscope?

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I can't find anything on DJANGO.

2.1 is correct on MAN:

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's actually pretty interesting, as it suggests that some industrial or public service type films were made in 3D. Would Bob have any data on those productions? Do any of them even survive? I for one would love to see a 20 minutes short on steel production in Pittsburg IN ASTOUNDING THREEE DIMENSIONS.

I would LOVE to find any of the 3-D industrial films from that period. They certainly made them and I've seen photos of people watching them but none have ever surfaced.

There is some fantastic 3-D footage shot in 1939 at the Pennsylvania Railroad Altoona Works. It was used in a short that we've preserved called THRILLS FOR YOU.

 

[RolandL]

Probably not from the 50's but Michael Starks had a number of 3-D industrial shorts that he would sell on VHS tape back in the 1980's.

 

[Brandon Conway]

What is the issue with Blast of Silence?

The DVD is director approved 1.33:1 for a 1961 US independent film that was distributed by Universal. I expect it played 1.85:1 theatrically upon release.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Probably not from the 50's but Michael Starks had a number of 3-D industrial shorts that he would sell on VHS tape back in the 1980's.

No, he had nothing like that from the 1950's.

 

[theonemacduff]

I would LOVE to find any of the 3-D industrial films from that period. They certainly made them and I've seen photos of people watching them but none have ever surfaced.

There is some fantastic 3-D footage shot in 1939 at the Pennsylvania Railroad Altoona Works. It was used in a short that we've preserved called THRILLS FOR YOU.

I know that you and your partners have been preserving 3-D films, but is there any thought been given to creating a collection, say, of these minor 3-D shorts, and putting them out on BR? I mean the 1939 one is probably out of copyright by now, and there are probably others. A disc called, I think, World War II in 3-D came out a year or so ago. Maybe there are even some WPA shorts done in 3-D, TVA stuff mayhap.... Well, one can dream.

 

[Doug Bull]

Here is an actual original 35mm film frame from the trailer of "MAN WITHOUT A STAR"

There certainly appears to be room within the frame for a 2:1 ratio.

 

[clambake]

Hi Bob, I'm not sure if the info was posted in the thread, did a quick search with no results. What format would the original 1966 Django, by Sergio Corbucci, be documented for initial US screenings? It's one of those weird 1.66:1 formated euro westerns.

I don't believe Django was released in the U.S. when it came out.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I know that you and your partners have been preserving 3-D films, but is there any thought been given to creating a collection, say, of these minor 3-D shorts, and putting them out on BR? I mean the 1939 one is probably out of copyright by now, and there are probably others. A disc called, I think, World War II in 3-D came out a year or so ago. Maybe there are even some WPA shorts done in 3-D, TVA stuff mayhap.... Well, one can dream.

Yes, we've been trying to sell this concept for some time now. We've got roughly three hours of prime 3-D material from 1922 through 1955, all restored from original left/right 35mm materials.

Unfortunately, all the major players have passed on TREASURES FROM THE 3-D FILM ARCHIVE but I haven't given up. We've still got a few irons in the fire...

 

[FoxyMulder]

Yes, we've been trying to sell this concept for some time now. We've got roughly three hours of prime 3-D material from 1922 through 1955, all restored from original left/right 35mm materials.

Unfortunately, all the major players have passed on TREASURES FROM THE 3-D FILM ARCHIVE but I haven't given up. We've still got a few irons in the fire...

Maybe with burning technology now cheaply available you could do it yourself on a per order basis so people can get to see these.

 

[Robin9]

Hi Bob, I'm not sure if the info was posted in the thread, did a quick search with no results. What format would the original 1966 Django, by Sergio Corbucci, be documented for initial US screenings? It's one of those weird 1.66:1 formated euro westerns.

ADDITION: just got King Vidor's Man Without a Star (1955) starring Kirk Douglas french DVD. It is 4/3. I see on dvdbeaver that there is a german 2.0:1 disc available. Was that movie 1.85:1 as imdb says, or superscope?

What's wrong with this picture?

You should have bought the U.K. DVD. It looks like this:

 

[Professor Echo]

Just watched the German SD of the 1955 Randolph Scott western RAGE AT DAWN. Packaging said full screen, but it was actually enhanced letterboxed 1:85, which I'm assuming is correct? Nice to see a public domain title letterboxed. The print used looked to be maybe 16mm, but it wasn't so bad. It also included as an extra the original deleted ending scene,which presumably was cut for being too violent, plus the trailer which looked better than the feature, and a great still gallery. Well worth the $7.00 I paid for it in Germany.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Rage at Dawn was filmed mid-Oct to Nov 8th, 1954 in the aspect ratio of 1.85.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

This would make a good double-feature with LOVE ME TENDER!

 

[ahollis]

The commentary on the disc may have some answers. Apparently, Brook had his camera operators purposefully not "compose" shots so as to give the film a more wild and documentary type feel. The whole crew seemingly felt this comes across best in full frame, with Feil referring to the presentation of the laserdisc as the first time it has been seen as intended.That's a summary of the commentary, anyway, from a user at criterionforum, so it may be worth having a listen yourself. But yes, it seems like historically this will have played wide, and obviously efforts were made to make sure it worked in widescreen, but when you've got director, producer, DP and cameraman all telling you they prefer full frame it gets hard to argue that angle.

I'm sorry but why in the H... Would a cinematographer and director would just forget the aspect ratio for last few years and go for open frame. Commentary or not it just does not make sense. Not one bit.